What you basically fail to understand (unsurprisingly) is that the child is a member of the society and not a property of the parents. Hence it's under the protection of the same instruments that the society has (via the state) to protect the adults, usually laws. Now before you succumb to your urge to accuse of tyranny everything which can't be computed via the notions of your ideology, spend 60 seconds thinking what would happen if the parents are free to do whatever they want with their children. Why not slavery? Or sexual abuse? Or making them psychopathic junkies who are told to kill on sight? Or, God forbid, communists?! They may think that these things are perfect for their spiritual upbringing and who the hell are you to claim otherwise?

Quote:Nope. That claim was even debunked on the looniest of liberal television networks.....MSNBC.

Right, they actually require all interest groups to comply, regardless of what religion or beliefs they have. So you are right to say that Catholics are not being discriminated against in these cases, since there is no singling out. Everyone already complies. At least, this is how it works if you call yourself a hospital, university or institute in Minnesota.

Quote:Why not slavery? Or sexual abuse? Or making them psychopathic junkies who are told to kill on sight?

What one does not realize is that in these cases the parents were themselves the victims of abuse or were forced to assist the parent in abusing their child somewhere close to 95% of the time (and before anyone spews statistics at me, it is exceedingly hard to measure these things so I'm going off of what they discover in mental institutes for children who have been abused/ neglected/ etc)... so in reality the vast majority of the minority of children who would be abused would have had parents who were abusive, who's grandparents were abusive, etc, etc. Much the same with drug addicts, though to a lesser degree.

Communism will be programmed into children if the family they live with has any tendencies towards it anyway, so it really is unavoidable to be socialized as a communist if your parents are communists. (In the grand scheme of things, somewhere around 70% of kids will have the same or very similar political ideologies and religious/ moral views that their parents hold. Unless they're in college, where people tend to become more of the American Liberal) And really, Communism being good or bad is just a matter of taste, and the state has no power to regulate taste or belief. And for JJ, who will attempt to shove some situation and words I did not say down my throat, Believing in something does not mean that you Act on something. You can be a Satanic, Heroin addicted communist that claims that the great Satan allows him to run through public schools in the nude every Friday, but as long as you do not do that and break about 5 laws, the state has no right to regulate it. The 2nd amendment guarantees the protection of beliefs from the state, and even if they are against the law you can still hold your beliefs, just not act on the particular tenants that are against the law. And the difference between faith and action is what I think you have yet to fully realize.

Quote:
Put in as many red herrings about abortion as you want, fact is, if JW parents are refusing a life-saving blood transfusion for their child and the child dies and could have been saved otherwise, they sacrificed the very real earthly life of their child on the altar of what is not more than their personal belief in connection with an unproven assumption about a very hypothetical afterlife.
See below for consequences.

No, parents would not be "sacrificing" the child in that case. If their beliefs are correct (and you have no proof they are not) they would actually be SAVING the child. As Jesus himself said, "What does it profit you to gain the whole world but lose your own soul?" (paraphrase of Matthew 16:26.) Let materialistic atheist parents parent their children as if nothing but the material exists. Let theists parent their children with the view of spirit, soul, and body in view.

By the way, it is a doctor's job to advise the patient (or guardian) of the treatment options, NOT to decide for the patient what treatment is to be given.

It should strike you odd that you use the same line of arguing than the inquisition.
It's not only sick, it assumes that people - inquisitors, parents - can DETERMINE the quality of the afterlife for other people - victims, children -, with these last ones being unable to do anything against it. It assumes, that people can be forced by other people and their doings into losing or winning something in the afterlife or even afterlife as such, and pretty obviously that would not be fair and just. If the soul is eternal - and last time I checked this is widely assumed - how could it be destroyed by something as mundane and material as a transfusion of blood? The whole idea is ridiculous. Which is, why it's SUPERSTITION. It's a ridiculous assumption within the belief of those people that would violate a couple of basic "belief axioms".

Apart from that, let us repeat it once again, so that even the Elodins are understanding this.

If a life is on the line, and there is a proven and risk-poor method to save it - and blood transfusion IS such a method - the burden of proof is with the ones who do not want to save that life. That should be obvious. A modern, civilized society would violate all principles of child-protection, if it would allow every nutcase to let their children die on every imaginable whim.
It should also be obvious, that a child should not die because of his/her PARENTS'S belief.

Reading all this, maybe the inquisition wasn't all THAT bad. Maybe, in such a situation society should put those parents to the test: "To demonstrate the good intentions and since society would be able to save the life of this child, parents can prove their good-will by a simple test. One of them - which one the parents will decide among yourselves - will lose so much blood, until only a trasfusion can save him or her. If that parent then wants to rather die than a transfusion, and if the other parent agrees, we will also let nature take its course on the child."

Quote:No, parents would not be "sacrificing" the child in that case. If their beliefs are correct (and you have no proof they are not) they would actually be SAVING the child. As Jesus himself said, "What does it profit you to gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"

I think it's an admirable thing, managing to be both anti-choice (wishing to make abortion illegal) and anti-life (supporting child murder through inaction because of its parents' religious beliefs, if the religion/cult is powerful enough to bribe the senate into allowing whatever dangerous practices it comes up with).

It means you not only have a lot of explaining to do here among the living, but you'll also probably have one hell of a lot more when you meet old Pete up there at the pearly gates.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

Quote:No, parents would not be "sacrificing" the child in that case. If their beliefs are correct (and you have no proof they are not) they would actually be SAVING the child. As Jesus himself said, "What does it profit you to gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"

God forbids human sacrifice.

Jesus Christ didn't say it was profitable to sacrifice a child.
He was speaking about "a man" to lose his soul and gain the world, which isn't even possible, it's hyperbole.

Quote:Nope. That claim was even debunked on the looniest of liberal television networks.....MSNBC.

Right, they actually require all interest groups to comply, regardless of what religion or beliefs they have. So you are right to say that Catholics are not being discriminated against in these cases, since there is no singling out. Everyone already complies. At least, this is how it works if you call yourself a hospital, university or institute in Minnesota.

Nah, as the MSNBC link I provided says, there are no states at all under which there is a religious or other exemption that can that lets people not have to provide stuff they believe to be immoral through insurance.

@Zenofex

Quote:
I thought that non-Elodins will recognize the border between the serious part and sarcasm.

Non-Elodins don't have the keep intellect, superb wit and vast knowledge of the world and of human nature that Elodin has so please don't hold them to that standard. It's really not fair!

@JJ

Quote:
It should strike you odd that you use the same line of arguing than the inquisition.

No, it strikes me that you are making false statements.
1) I don't and never have supported the Inquisition. That was a decidedly unChristian endeavor.
2) My argument for letting parents parent their children without atheist interference is not at all similar to whatever argument someone may use to support the Inquisition.

Parents have the moral obligation to teach their child what they believe to be true and make decisions about/for and to guide the child in a way that they believe pleases God. Not that they believe will please you.

I simply can't accept that atheists have the right to oppress all other religions in terms of child rearing. Theistic parents have the right to raise their children in their own religion. JWs have the right to determine how their children will be raised and what medical treatment is appropriate for them.

Materialistic atheism may say people are simply soulless sacks of random chemicals but the majority of the human race rejects that notion. Parents make decisions that about the physical and spiritual needs of the child. Deal with it.

Quote:
It's not only sick, it assumes that people - inquisitors, parents - can DETERMINE the quality of the afterlife for other people - victims, children -, with these last ones being unable to do anything against it.

I have no "sick" beliefs but I can't say the same for everyone, unfortunately.

I also don't agree with the JWs but I am tolerant and believe ALL people have a right to freedom of religion.

Quote:
Which is, why it's SUPERSTITION. Which is, why it's SUPERSTITION. It's a ridiculous assumption within the belief of those people that would violate a couple of basic "belief axioms".

You call the beliefs of JWs ridiculous superstitions. I consider the beliefs of atheism to be ridiculous superstitions. But I believe you have a right to raise your children in those ridiculous superstitions because I respect your right of freedom of religion. R E S P E C T.

Quote:
Apart from that, let us repeat it once again, so that even the Elodins are understanding this.

You are right that the Elodins have trouble understanding (a better word would have been "accepting") the idea only atheist parents have a right to raise their children in their beliefs. Elodins are intelligent, moral, free-thinking, freedom loving capitalist pigs so it is no wonder we consider many of your statements to be irrational.

@gnomes

Quote:
I recognized it, but got all outraged so that El didn't have to. Hence the:

Quote:Nah, as the MSNBC link I provided says, there are no states at all under which there is a religious or other exemption that can that lets people not have to provide stuff they believe to be immoral through insurance.

No, what he pointed out is that insurance policies have the ability to not provide money for prescription drugs/ medical drugs of any kind, which means that the plans that do not include them will not have contraceptives in them anyway. If you want to see the "Loophole" that he points out, then here:

Quote:"This code section shall not be construed to require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract policy or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs."

And there is the huge exemption to the Georgia law. You are exempt from it if your policy simply does not provide for prescription drugs

So you, as an employer, can provide your employees with a plan that has no prescription drugs and avoid it that way, but in my state there is a block to that as well. You can provide such a plan, but you must have another plan or the ability to create another plan for those who ask for it. You have to either provide for everything with one plan, or you offer options, otherwise you're not being very legal.

Georgia might not have such a plan, but that's not all of us states with this mandate. ____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

Elodin, if I understand your position right, you say that doctors should only suggest a treatment, but when children are involved, the final decision should always have the parents, and said parents should have the right to reject a treatment, even if that means certain death for the child and even if the suggested treatment would virtually guarantee full recovery.

So the question is:

Would you say that in such a case parents could simply reject treatment, period, or would you say that they would have to name reason(s)?

In case they would have to name reason(s), would you say that ANY and EVERY reason would be valid or would you say that only SOME reasons should be considered valid, and in case of the latter, which ones and why?

I also would like you to answer the following question: If a child landed in an emergency room with a label on a chain around the neck that said: "IN CASE OF A STOPPED HEART DO NOT REVIVE!", would you say, that the doctors should follow that one?

Let's say the ER team read the label, but revived the child anyway. If that went to court, parents claiming that the medical team just destroyed the chance of their child to enjoy eternal life, how should a court decide?

Quote:Right.
Would you say that in such a case parents could simply reject treatment, period, or would you say that they would have to name reason(s)?

In case they would have to name reason(s), would you say that ANY and EVERY reason would be valid or would you say that only SOME reasons should be considered valid, and in case of the latter, which ones and why?

Loony government bureaucrats must not be allowed to force their will on families in regard to health care. Father Obama and his Marxist freak show DOES NOT know best.

The parents should be the ones who determine what is best for their children. Their children are their children, not Obama's children. Let Obama parent his kids and the other parents parent their own children.

No, "any and every reason" is not acceptable. For example, if someone said, "No, doctor, don't treat my child. My child is a Christian. I hate religion and I hate my child and want her to die" obviously (to people who believe absolute morality exists) the parent is immoral and should not even be allowed to have custody of children.

If a parent determines it is in the child's best spiritual interest not to have a blood transfusion then that must be respected. Again, materialistic atheists don't have the right to determine the health care of everyone else are are utterly ignorant of spiritual aspects of life and so will not reach the same conclusions as others in many areas of life.

Quote:
I also would like you to answer the following question: If a child landed in an emergency room with a label on a chain around the neck that said: "IN CASE OF A STOPPED HEART DO NOT REVIVE!", would you say, that the doctors should follow that one?

Let's say the ER team read the label, but revived the child anyway. If that went to court, parents claiming that the medical team just destroyed the chance of their child to enjoy eternal life, how should a court decide?

That depends on whether the care takers have reason to believe the necklace is legit or not. Perhaps you are unaware that you can sign papers that declare what you want done for various cases of medical need you may be found in.

If doctors knowingly violate those conditions they should immediately be disbarred and have financial punitive damages assessed and such remuneration should be given to the patient who was wronged.
____________Revelation

Quote:If a parent determines it is in the child's best spiritual interest not to have a blood transfusion then that must be respected. Again, materialistic atheists don't have the right to determine the health care of everyone else are are utterly ignorant of spiritual aspects of life and so will not reach the same conclusions as others in many areas of life.

are you talking about spirituality or sectarism? can someone decide what is best for your spirituality?

and you know that parents may be condemned if their choices put the life of their child in danger? parents do not own their children.

I finally got it. It took me far longer than it should, but I think I managed to pinpoint the crucial thing here.

There are essentially two distinct forms of government in America.

There is the government that enacts legislation that Elodin doesn't like. We all know everything there is to know about that one. It consists of all democrats and a few republicans who are secretly democrats, it meddles into people's lives, we've gone through that. We'll refer to it as the loony one.

And there is the rare and lesser known one, the one that enacts legislation that Elodin likes - the Do Not Take My Name In Vain kind. It's very specific and often hard to comprehend because it is not referred to. When it enacts a law, what happens is not that the government just enacted a law. No. What happens is that a law is enacted. This form of government does not meddle in anyone's lives (or, more properly, no one's lives are meddled in. You get the hang of it after a while). It's just that several fresh facts of life make their way into the world, making it a better place.

Clearly, the second one is superior in every facet, not only because the nation is guided benevolently toward a better future, but also because authoritarian measures are not resorted to, quite opposite to the loony government and its machinations.

This thing is going to occupy me for a while. Thankfully Adrius has been trained to take over the baby masturbation business until I'm back.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf